32" displays are a sweet spot in size for me as long as the pixel density is >200 ppi, but more for graphics applications than text editors. For 3D applications especially, it's very beneficial to have a lot of area on one screen since the GUI default layouts tend to fit best on 16:9 screens or close to that and larger screens give you larger multi-viewport layouts. 24 inch displays just couldn't come close here. 32" allows me to work in a 4 viewport layout all day long. It's also nice in IDEs, but my main purpose is various graphics applications. And sure I could fiddle endlessly with multi-display layouts but that's such a time suck and every application is completely different so I wouldn't bother no matter what my screen size is.

It makes total sense for graphical applications especially with 3d and the emergent VR/AR stuff and something I'll have to keep in mind.

24 definitely can be a bit tight, but realistic for 3 monitor setup.

If I was going with only 2 monitors for software development, or mainly text work, there are nice 2K monitors that are about 25" that are perfect.

I have two older 27" 2K monitors as well and they tend to be too big in the long run, and 3 were untenable.

The point isn't to have more pixels, it's to have more detailed pixels. You use scaling to get whatever display size you want.

4k 27" with 2x scaling is effectively the same size as 1080p 27". But one looks like absolute crap, the other is reasonably sharp and detailed. Text is much better with higher PPI. And 4k27" is just 160 PPI, the 6k 32" monitors are 220 PPI so text is very crisp.

I don't know about other OSs, but fractional scaling "just works" on KDE Linux. The size of displayed content has nothing to do with the pixels you have. You control the physical screen size (inches) and scale factor to get the content size you want, and you buy as many pixels as you can afford to get good quality at that size. There's a parent comment on this submission talking about how his 8k 32" monitor is visibly better than 6k 32" for text sharpness; TFA says the same thing. You really want as many pixels as you can afford to buy.

Of course, the minimum (densest) content size you can use is constrained by PPI, low PPI won't be able to display very small content.

Yeah I love my 4K 24" monitor but nobody seems to be making them anymore :'( especially at this price point ($250). It's the minimum DPI I'd consider HiDPI. Really worried about it breaking at some point. I wish I had bought two.

27" 4K just won't cut it.

My Dell P2415Q is thankfull still kickin' (knock on wood).

I have had my eye on an LG[1] out there at 24" 4k (currently about 300usd) -- as that size/resolution has been the sweet spot for me for the last few years. I'm planning to pick one of these up and stick it in a closet just to have on hand in case the Dell dies on me.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LPNKFK0

I've got two of the P2415Q's and will probably keep using them until they kick the dust. Every 6 months or so I look at monitors and anything with an equivalent or higher DPI is too expensive for me to justify ($1200+ per monitor)

Wow that Dell P2415Q looks very tempting for replacing my junk 1080p 24” work gave.

That's the exact one I have! It's great, perfect for me. It's old stock I think, in Europe these aren't available anymore :'( I recommend picking one up.

I'm using a 30" Dell Ultrasharp which would be slightly less dense than yours. It's great, but I'd just like the same visual appeal as the macbook pro I have plugged into it. Text looks far better